Skip to main content

The Difference: A Dynamic Earth!

When creationists want to awe a credulous audience, preferably one in a church with limited education, they employ a variety of methods. One method is by trotting out one credentialed person to impress the audience with the fact that they have a Ph.D. or some other advanced degree; the person in question is usually old and may not even be a scientist, but they wave their doctorate around as though it makes them qualified to speak on DNA or geology. Often this scientist, generally well-spoken, employs another favored method in support of their rickety case. They will bring forth a natural process and say that if it is true, then the earth could not possibly be older than six thousand years because the phenomena would not exist as it currently does. One such example comes to us courtesy of the Creation Moments organization, which provides daily broadcasts of some example or another that either purports to “disprove” evolution or shed light on the glory of Creation as they see it. In a broadcast recorded as “Simple Math, Hard Questions,” the anonymous author states that, given the rate of erosion, the earth cannot possibly be old, for the mountains would have long ago worn down into nothing.

They begin by asserting that “evolutionists” believe things that modern scientists simply do not believe, proceed to skewer this straw man and then shake their heads that anyone can believe this notion. The problem is, of course, that no one does. What they assert simply isn’t true. They say that “we are also told that the last mountain building activity took place about 65 million years ago.” Who in the world told them that? The Himalayas are a relatively recent mountain range, in the scale of geological time, the result of the collision of the Indian sub-continent with the rest of Asia. They are still rising! By contrast, the Appalachian Mountains of the Eastern United States stopped rising a long time ago, and have greatly eroded since their peak. The notion that, as the young-earth creationists assert, given the rate of erosion, all the continents should have worn down to sea level after 14 million years only makes sense to the creationist. No “evolutionist”--or perhaps we should say “sane scientist”--would agree with some of the propositions the creationist attributes to him. In the creationist mind the world is stable. Organisms don’t evolve; they exist much as they always did. In the creationist mind (unless they’re called upon to do some mental gymnastics to justify Noah’s Flood as possible), the continents are pretty much as they’ve always been.
           
The problem, at least for the creationist, is that the world is not stable, it is dynamic! Organisms evolve, continents move, islands form, mountains rise and erode away over the course of earth’s roughly 4.5 billion years of existence. Creationists can only make their bizarre scenarios sound plausible in contrast to the evolutionary straw-men that they themselves have cut out of whole cloth. The math may be “simple”, but the questions are inane.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

What Creationists Don't Understand

There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...